Frank is packing. I wish I can pack my legs into my suitcase so there is more room on the airplane.
I’ve always assumed that quality is the result of quantity, and that abstract notions of consciousness, sentience, subjectivity and autonomy can ultimately be explained by the mechanical motions and interactions of inanimate entities such as elementary particles, atoms, cells, organs, organisms, etc. But now, I want to take on a different view in regards to this assumption because of the serious limitations that it possesses; mainly, that it fails to explain how subjective experiences and sentient feelings such as pleasure and pain can be reduced to the objective model of science and the mechanistic motions of natural process.
These “subjective” experiences can only be known and be described by the entities which possess such qualities. They cannot be isolated from the subject and be measured quantitatively. The modern scientific model suggests that, with enough complexity, subjectivity and sentience would automatically arise. Take the example from the mind/body problem. Some people think that the phenomenological mental states and the subjective experiences of first person perspective can be reduced to the complexity of physical properties of neural states. In other words, complexity of the brain can give clues to its mental productivity, and that with enough neural complexity, a mind can arise from the brain. But sheer complexity is irrelevant. No matter how many more neurons we add, and how many more synaptic connections we make, problems of consciousness still remains a mystery. Neural complexity is the wrong kind of explanation because it is merely a matter of how many cells a given cell can causally and mechanistically interact with. You can add more cells to your kidney, but it still will not be conscious and autonomous.
All of this implies that subjectivity is a totally different, and a “new” kind of quality that cannot arise through the causes and effects of “dead” cells and insentient entities such as electrical currents, cells, and molecules. There is a “gap” between what is objective and what is subjective, what is qualitatively expressed and what is quantifiable. But then if this were true, then we are talking about getting something from nothing, which violates the precursor property of phenomenon. You cannot introduce a new dimension into the phase space of your model to explain a certain result.
But what if the world isn’t as “dead” and mechanical as science assumes it to be? What if all matter that makes up the universe [starting with atoms] is in fact itself experiential? And as atoms become molecules, which become protein, and then ultimately cells and organs, does this experiential awareness deepen and expand while becoming more capable of recognizing the world? In other words, if all of the cells and molecules in our bodies that are experiential do they have some kind of quality and properties in relation to subjectivity and feelings? That their pharmacological activities arise through not just the making of themselves, but through communications with other organelles, cells, and neural consciousnesses? Through this qualitative bottom-up processing, a higher state of order ultimately forms to give birth to self-awareness and individuality.
This would mean that ultimately, every constituent in this world is pregnant with some form of consciousness and feelings, and that spirits and intelligence are imminent and embodied in matter itself. There is no dichotomy and duality between mind and matter, objectivity and subjectivity, as the two co-produce each other in a dynamic and organic fashion. You would not have mind without body, and body without mind because one doesn’t make sense without the other. There always needs to be a physical medium of space and time for subjective awareness and experiences to “ride” on, and be manifested through. Yes, it is true that you cannot see anything but matter anywhere in the universe, and that you cannot detect consciousness in matter. But that doesn’t mean that matter itself is not experiential and conscious. The reason why we fail to see consciousness is because seeing is in itself a conscious phenomenon. You can see that a paradox arises here, and it is this paradox that I’m trying to point out when I say that consciousness cannot be reduced to matter, and that “dead” matter alone, cannot give rise to consciousness.
This view that matter, down to its smallest constituents, has some kind of awareness and experience is called panpsychism. It makes it possible for sentient beings such as complex organisms like humans and other top mammals to develop subjectivity and phenomenological experiences, as well as for qualities to be in the same dimensional qualities. This perspective might help us rediscover the qualities of life, and to close the gap between matter and mind, so that our relationship with the natural world can be healed and recovered. Panpsychism could also reduce the damaged we have done to earth, as we might finally be able to co-evolve creativity, along with other entities and members that are themselves the manifestation of a world that is constituted by sentient and experiential matter.
I saw Albert Einstein at Toys R Us. We started feeling each other up and we both got hard. Then he took off his pants and saw his penis, which is the exactly duplicate of my own.
I started making out with him, but then I realized that his face was made out of plastic, so i said to him “Mr Einstein, why are you wearing a mask upon kissing me?” And ripped off his mask. Underneath was an older and wiser version of the same man, except his face is made up of real skin and flesh. Then we got on a waterbed and cuddled, and began a long and passionate discussion about suicide…
We both agreed that there is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide, and that ultimately, there are really only 2 possible questions in life :
Should I continue to live?
Or should I kill myself?
Most of us continue living because we have not reached a definite answer to this question.
If we judge the importance of a philosophical problem by the consequences that suicide entails, the problem of meaning of life is certainly the most important. There are always moments in our lives where we feel that ultimately, life has no purpose. Despite the efforts of humanity to find meaning in the universe, a lot of us find life to be “absurd” because the search for meaning ultimately fails and that no such meaning exists outside of our subjective meaning-making schemas.
Someone who feels the “absurdity” of life and conclude that life has no intrinsic meaning, and therefore, not worth living may want to commit suicide. But there are always contradictions between people’s action and their judgements. People who commit suicide may do so with the belief that life does have meaning, and those who continue to live may nevertheless conclude that life has no meaning.
With all it’s complications, I think there should be a course, or even a degree on suicide in every school. It will be called “Suicide and Its Discontent”. Students are to learn various ways of how people kill themselves in different cultures through out history, the complex philosophical implications of suicide, and to choose between life and death. Then they will come up with creative techniques and ideas for attempting suicide based on their own needs, desires, reasons, and ideologies. There is a presentation/exam at the end of the semester, in which the students “present” their projects by attempting suicide techniques of their own choices in front of the whole class. Those who do not have the balls to attempt suicide will automatically fail the course, be booed off the stage, and be forced to try it again the next year. Those who attempts, but do not succeed will receive a grade based on the degrees of injuries; the closer to death you are, the better grade you will receive. But only those who succeed in killing themselves with the most imaginative techniques can pass the course with an A. Graduation and funeral could then be combined into one single event, where the deceased will be honored with a degree in Suicide, for arriving at themselves in a free chosen death.
I want to live in one big empty space. Now when I say empty, I really do mean EMPTY. I tried living in an empty space once in Baltimore when I had an apartment, but that only lasted a few days. I brought a suitcase with me with all my clothes in there and put it in the bathtub so it didn’t take up any space in my room. The only thing I had in my room was a blanket and a pillow. But I didn’t even want to have the blanket and the pillow in my room seeing that it is hypocritical, since a real empty space shouldn’t have anything in it at all.
I would like to cut up and divide my house and spread it out so that different sections of the house would be totally separated from each other. For instance, my bathroom would be a totally separate piece of space from my bedroom, kitchen, and closet. This way, I would never have to clean my room, and I won’t have to sleep or eat near my dump, dirty laundry, left over foods and other bodily and material wastes.
My ideal house :
It would have the bedroom in the Africa safari because the weather there is so warm that I wouldn’t need to cover myself up with a blanket when I sleep. I could then fulfill my fantasy of sleeping in a completely empty space. This bedroom space would be a cone-shaped architecture so there won’t be any ceiling or corners. Without them, you get an even emptier structure because you’d have less material surfaces to think and worry about or paint over, and clean. This coned structure will be situated right in the middle of the safari where I would sleep naked in every night. It would just be me, naked and alone in this cone-shaped, white space devoid of distractions and material objects – a rather abstract, surreal, and existential image. By living in an empty space, you can eliminate a lot of problems and worries. I have OCD, so I tend to worry about things before i go to sleep, like whether or not the lights are off in the kitchen, if the garage door is closed, is the bathroom flushed, or if the stove is turned off. The first step to maintain living in an empty space is to make sure that your closet is located in a completely separate space. If teleportation becomes a reality, then my closet would have to be, at the very least, in another continent. I would like my closet to be in Taiwan, not just because I like the their clothes, but also because my father had hired a super talented maid who has the skill to fold my underwear into perfect squares. Another problem I have is sleeping too close to my bodily and material wastes. After I wake up each morning, I would go to France to piss because I like how the typical French toilets are engineered; the hole is at the back, so the excrement is supposed to disappear as quickly as possible so that you won’t have to be confronted with your own shit (unlike the Chinese toilets where the excrement sit in a flat surface where you DO have to confront your own shit). I would like my kitchen and my dining room to be in Japan because I love sushi and Japanese food helps me stay skinny. Finally, to do the earth’s environment a favor, I want my little trash can to be floating in deep space and be connected to the a black hole.